tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post1747787732622990187..comments2016-12-06T21:26:56.999-07:00Comments on Religion in American History: D. G. Hart on Molly Worthen's Apostles of ReasonPaul Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13881964303772343114noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-79547312688654458322014-02-25T09:10:46.401-07:002014-02-25T09:10:46.401-07:00From Fred Clark at Slactivist (http://www.patheos....From Fred Clark at Slactivist (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/02/24/rewriting-evangelical-history-with-special-guest-d-g-hart/):<br /><br />&quot;This switcheroo is a defensive move — a means of fending off legitimate criticism directed toward the most prominent, most popular, most vocal, most central and most influential leaders of the tribe. It’s simple enough: just pretend that these folks are not prominent, popular, vocal, central or influential. And then find somebody somewhere who seems less vulnerable to whatever the critics are saying and then pretend that this person is actually the real prominent/popular/vocal/central/influential leader of the tribe — nevermind that almost nobody in the tribe has ever heard of them or of their ideas.&quot;Barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04735814736387033844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-75783385397654494512014-02-24T20:31:01.656-07:002014-02-24T20:31:01.656-07:00I would add too that in addressing a subculture, h...I would add too that in addressing a subculture, however diverse, that has earned a reputation for a certain defensiveness, this book maintains a refreshing charity about her subjects. I usually find that tone is as important as subject selection in making an argument believable. Kabohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05227841808599733062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-91058551170948104532014-02-24T19:39:41.572-07:002014-02-24T19:39:41.572-07:00By way of comparison/contrast, here is a very exte...By way of comparison/contrast, here is a very extensive review of Molly&#39;s book, from The Nation (and I would add a thoughtful review in Books and Culture, but you need to subscribe to get that one):<br /><br />http://www.thenation.com/article/178237/beyond-belief<br /><br />It also bears mentioning, I think, just how enjoyable it is to read this book, agree or disagree as you may -- the writing carries you along fluently and with a plethora of anecdotes that will find their way into your classroom.Paul Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13881964303772343114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-59968099458011992802014-02-24T10:05:15.784-07:002014-02-24T10:05:15.784-07:00I think Randall makes a good point (and not just b...I think Randall makes a good point (and not just because I have written on popular authors and scholars). It is people like LaHaye, Joel Osteen, Max Lucado, and Rick Warren that millions of people are turning to, and many of them don&#39;t know Mark Noll or George Marsden (although I might think they should). Certainly we get a different view if we examine evangelicalism from the standpoint of Noll or Marsden than we do from Lucado or Warren. But which is more representative and to whom?<br /><br />The other thing that Hart points out--the historiographical (as well as theological) question of the utility of evangelicalism--is a perennial issue. Furthermore, I think there has always been a tension between the general and particular in scholarly studies but even in evangelicalism itself. Hart asks about the inclusion of both Fuller and the Southern Baptists in the same narrative since they weren&#39;t conceptually on the same mission. I understand his point, but I don&#39;t know that it is valid. I think it is part of the purview of scholars to recognize connections our subjects might not recognize. So, even if Fuller and the SBC don&#39;t see themselves as part of the same mission or even see themselves going in opposite directions doesn&#39;t mean that we as scholars can&#39;t note that our subjects have missed something that binds them together. Even Marsden points out that though the Fuller profs were neo-evangelicals, they were still essentially fundamentalists in theology. But where I do agree with Hart is we as scholars of evangelicalism have problems defining the &quot;what&quot; that ties &quot;evangelicals&quot; together. I haven&#39;t had the opportunity yet to read Worthen&#39;s book so I won&#39;t comment on her decision on the &quot;what&quot; but I would venture to say simply asking the same questions shouldn&#39;t necessarily unite individuals into a unit for scholars, but if those asking the same questions are using the same methods to ask those questions or if they are relying on similar tropes or images or texts in answering those questions, there may be something there whether our informants (or ourselves) like it or not.Unknownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09373236608876589208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-43302579116423706702014-02-24T08:01:48.164-07:002014-02-24T08:01:48.164-07:00Enjoyed reading the review.
But I wonder about ...Enjoyed reading the review. <br /><br />But I wonder about the last section in it on what we focus on as scholars. This is a question of influence and how we judge lasting impact, I guess. <br /><br />Isn&#39;t there a strong argument to be made about numbers, reach, and influence? What about a comparison of sales figures for Mark Noll&#39;s Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (roughly 40k) and one of David Barton&#39;s post-Glenn-Beck-TV-appearances books? If millions of Americans have taken Francis Schaeffer, Billy James Hargis, John Hagee, Tim LaHaye, and Hal Lindsey seriously, then I see no reason why we shouldn&#39;t treat them as serious, and seriously important subjects. Randallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16755286304057000048noreply@blogger.com